Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Point of accuracy: Apple doesn't make money selling your personal data. I don't know about MS.
That’s total BS. Apple sells Google the data of ~half their users in the form of making Google Safari’s default search engine, in a deal worth several billion per year.

Apple is applauded on a regular basis for being “private by default” or whatever, but their deal with Google shows it’s nothing but a publicity stunt - they’re perfectly willing to make permissive data sharing the default as long as they’re paid enough for it.

If Apple made Duck Duck Go the default, Google would lose hundreds of millions of daily searches. Sure, some people would stupidly change their default back to Google, but I’d guess it would be fewer than half. (Actually... I can even see Yahoo and Bing and whoever else get a boost from this change, as it would increase how many people make a conscious choice for their search engine instead of passively accepting Google as their default.)
 
Nah, never gonna install Signal! Watch when Signal needs money, they will sell your info! Just like any social platform!
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: Zeus65
wauv… just tried to turn off my add blocker. The internet has truly become ugly. So many adds! Happy that I bought 1Blocker for 2$ before they changed to subscription based plans. Now they want 2$/month!
 
Saying "sells access to this information" is misleading. Facebook sells ads space, targeted at what ever people put in the system that I select. But I never get "access" to them unless they click on my ad and visit my site and then engage by providing more info.
 
Are people seriously expecting companies like Facebook and Google not to leverage the data that they are freely providing to them? Everyone not living under a rock knows that it’s used for targeted advertising.
 
  • Like
Reactions: benspratling
Similar happened with a friend of mine and Carwow. I talked to him about it (in person) and the next day he was getting adverts for it, even though he had never heard of them and never looked them up....
One of the things I can select, as an advertiser, is to ask Facebook to show ads to people whose friends have visited a page within x days. So are you sure the friends of the friend (I guess in this scenario that's you) also did not visit the web page around the time you had the conversation about it? I have also heard some anecdotal stories where we suspect the microphone access is doing this, but just making sure, because there are lots of other ways to generate the scenario you describe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mw360
My government (Austria, Europe) has access to Signal chat logs just like they have to SMS messages or our bank accounts, or most anything else. Really no point in using Signal. We are like farmed animals. In fact, economically we are their farmed animals. All we have to do is read the newspapers, buy and do what we are told in newspapers, and vote for whomever the newspapers tell us to vote for. I guess FB and Twitter both act and count as newspapers too.
No they haven‘t. This is simply false
 
Last edited:
Some people have Stockholm syndrome for Facebook.
“Yeah yeah, they are exploiting me, but they have a reason, they have families to raise, Mark needs to earn that billions of money to support the poor people in Africa… there are reasons….”
It's just cause on Facebook I can place $87 of ads and get 2 conversions, whereas on a traditional "digital magazine" a.k.a. "print blogging" website dedicated to my target market, I can place the same ad for $1000 and get none.
 
As scary as it might be, am I the only one curious as to how accurate my targeted ad would be?
A good amount of the data highlighted in the article (occupation, relationship status, education) is manually entered, so I'd assume those would be spot-on if you've kept your profile up to date. But it would be neat to see a demo page somewhere that plugged into the data FB had.
 
I was talking with friend of mine about his new job in one of the top popular beer company, and he send me a picture of 0% beer - on Signal.
Next day I saw a few ads of that beer on Facebook.

Worth to add - I haven't google or anything like this about the beer or that company.

Ye, privacy :)
What’s scary there, is that Facebook/Google know that you two are friends. Since he did search for it, and you two are friends, that’s likely where the ad data came from. Did you save the picture to your camera roll? That too could be it (if you allow Instagram full access to your photo library instead of select pictures for instance)
 
  • Like
Reactions: lazyrighteye
That campaign is brilliant. That it got blocked is even more powerful/telling.

I'm still staggered by the number of people that, on one hand, want to build a wall to keep out supposed "bad people" while at the exact same time happy to toss out the welcome mat for people, and companies, that are actually bad. That dichotomy is just baffling. Pick one. Trying to play both cards completely waters down your passionate stance on either.
 
Haha I love this. Way to go, Signal. I wish these would have slipped through and aired. Especially with a tagline at the bottom saying “signal doesn’t collect any user data” or something like that to help explain the irony.
 
"You got this add because you are a dog and a good boy, a pretty boy. You searched for treats and are thinking about scooting across the carpet."

The meme about nobody on the internet knowing you are a dog is no longer relevant.
 
Some people have Stockholm syndrome for Facebook.
“Yeah yeah, they are exploiting me, but they have a reason, they have families to raise, Mark needs to earn that billions of money to support the poor people in Africa… there are reasons….”
This problem needs to be addressed more directly.

I've seen some reports that suggest using social media can have similar effects to drug use.

The difference is that, especially when Facebook started, nobody knew how dangerous it would become. In fact I'd be willing to argue it wasn't even that bad back in the late 2000s. But simply telling people "you need to get off of Facebook" isn't going to solve the problem, because addiction is a real issue.

For people unfortunate enough to be entrenched in Facebook, leaving Facebook might mean:

* becoming disconnected from many friends/relatives who simply prefer to stick to FB (an even harder sell during the pandemic, when social connection is so important)
* losing touch with current events in one's community (when that community largely uses Facebook to advertise events and such)
* possibly missing out on employment opportunities
* and many other issues...

For example, in my town, the only public forum for posting about a lost pet is on Facebook. I don't use Facebook. Therefore, if I lose a pet, I have to resort to putting in a note at the pound (and hoping someone turns the pet in) or doing the traditional act of stapling lost signs to trees (which people don't really read anyway, and in at least one case I heard of someone getting fined for it).

There's also a Neighborhood Watch group on Facebook, to report suspicious activity, localized warnings about climate, neighborhood events like garage sales, etc. Again, if I'm not on FB, I don't have access to it.

A bit less "serious", but there's also the Facebook marketplace. Friends will show me awesome things they got "from Facebook". I'd love to be able to participate in both buying and selling, but since I'm not an FB user, I can't.

I'm still choosing to stay off FB, but I am aware of how much I'm missing out on because of that choice. I'm relatively introverted and most of my friends use other means of communication alongside FB, but I'm still well aware of what's on FB that I'm missing out on because I hear about it from others often. Now imagine someone who is already on FB and asking them to give up those benefits - alongside the issue of social media addiction.

The only way I see a real change happening is if a very, very major breach occurs at Facebook that has direct effect on a huge percentage of their users. I'm not talking "your E-mail address got compromised" level breaches here. I'm talking "35% of US Facebook users now have fraudulent credit applications that they have to personally spend hours of their life addressing as a direct result of a breach at Facebook." Even small breaches that ruin a small number of people won't help, because the Stockholm effect and the "it won't happen to me" effect will come into play. (When you hear about someone's house burning down, do you immediately run around to ensure your smoke detectors are working, look for loose wiring, etc? Or do you just think "wow, that's too bad, least it didn't happen to me?" and move on...)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zeus65 and haruhiko
I just ignore all social media sites. Easier that way
Some people have Stockholm syndrome for Facebook.
“Yeah yeah, they are exploiting me, but they have a reason, they have families to raise, Mark needs to earn that billions of money to support the poor people in Africa… there are reasons
 
This problem needs to be addressed more directly.

I've seen some reports that suggest using social media can have similar effects to drug use.

The difference is that, especially when Facebook started, nobody knew how dangerous it would become. In fact I'd be willing to argue it wasn't even that bad back in the late 2000s. But simply telling people "you need to get off of Facebook" isn't going to solve the problem, because addiction is a real issue.

For people unfortunate enough to be entrenched in Facebook, leaving Facebook might mean:

* becoming disconnected from many friends/relatives who simply prefer to stick to FB (an even harder sell during the pandemic, when social connection is so important)
* losing touch with current events in one's community (when that community largely uses Facebook to advertise events and such)
* possibly missing out on employment opportunities
* and many other issues...

For example, in my town, the only public forum for posting about a lost pet is on Facebook. I don't use Facebook. Therefore, if I lose a pet, I have to resort to putting in a note at the pound (and hoping someone turns the pet in) or doing the traditional act of stapling lost signs to trees (which people don't really read anyway, and in at least one case I heard of someone getting fined for it).

There's also a Neighborhood Watch group on Facebook, to report suspicious activity, localized warnings about climate, neighborhood events like garage sales, etc. Again, if I'm not on FB, I don't have access to it.

A bit less "serious", but there's also the Facebook marketplace. Friends will show me awesome things they got "from Facebook". I'd love to be able to participate in both buying and selling, but since I'm not an FB user, I can't.

I'm still choosing to stay off FB, but I am aware of how much I'm missing out on because of that choice. I'm relatively introverted and most of my friends use other means of communication alongside FB, but I'm still well aware of what's on FB that I'm missing out on because I hear about it from others often. Now imagine someone who is already on FB and asking them to give up those benefits - alongside the issue of social media addiction.

The only way I see a real change happening is if a very, very major breach occurs at Facebook that has direct effect on a huge percentage of their users. I'm not talking "your E-mail address got compromised" level breaches here. I'm talking "35% of US Facebook users now have fraudulent credit applications that they have to personally spend hours of their life addressing as a direct result of a breach at Facebook." Even small breaches that ruin a small number of people won't help, because the Stockholm effect and the "it won't happen to me" effect will come into play. (When you hear about someone's house burning down, do you immediately run around to ensure your smoke detectors are working, look for loose wiring, etc? Or do you just think "wow, that's too bad, least it didn't happen to me?" and move on...)
So your complaining that you want to use what Facebook offers. But do t want to use the service? Strange but to each their own. I use zero social media. Don’t care about it. Makes it much easier
 
Some people have Stockholm syndrome for Facebook.
“Yeah yeah, they are exploiting me, but they have a reason, they have families to raise, Mark needs to earn that billions of money to support the poor people in Africa… there are reasons….”
Mark also is on a land buying spree in Hawaii. Perhaps he brings some poor people in from Africa from time to time so they can see what being crazy rich is like?
 
  • Like
Reactions: haruhiko
What’s scary there, is that Facebook/Google know that you two are friends. Since he did search for it, and you two are friends, that’s likely where the ad data came from. Did you save the picture to your camera roll? That too could be it (if you allow Instagram full access to your photo library instead of select pictures for instance)

Uhm... instagram? We were chatting on Signal app ;) and no, I did not save it into my camera roll.
 
Google is even worse in this regard, they got even more meta data out of you. But so do Microsoft, Apple, Amazon and other giants that have the best data mining scripts out there. The game went so deep that you don't even have to click on the banner add anymore, they know if you looked at it or not that's how crazy tracking has become.
But the complaint these companies have with Apple is why I like them. They any random nut can’t go to them and assemble these types of ads by purchasing data from them. That is a huge difference. The fact that when Apple was giving users the keys to their encryption Google’s Chairman was doing speeches saying Google needs your data and walks right up to the creepy line and TRIES not to cross it. That to me speaks volumes about who they are.
 
I doubt these would be very accurate. Microtargeting is not the right way to run ads on Facebook. Facebook is trying to sway advertisers from using interest targeting at all. Instead each ad is being shown to people similar to users who have already expressed interest in the given ad.
 
One of the things I can select, as an advertiser, is to ask Facebook to show ads to people whose friends have visited a page within x days. So are you sure the friends of the friend (I guess in this scenario that's you) also did not visit the web page around the time you had the conversation about it? I have also heard some anecdotal stories where we suspect the microphone access is doing this, but just making sure, because there are lots of other ways to generate the scenario you describe.
Exactly, this was my suspicion for the stories shared in this thread about ads popping up after having presumably private conversations on those topics. If a friend searched for a beer image, the recipient who received it privately via Signal could have still gotten the ads via this friend connection. Same for the story about Carwow.

I've heard these types of stories many times before, and I'm always skeptical. I'm sure some shady companies (including big ones like FB) have probably attempted to covertly listen via microphones in the past. But especially now with Apple's privacy controls and notifications, that should be essentially impossible on Apple devices. Unless they are exploiting a security flaw, which ought to be grounds for permanent ban from the platform (it would be interesting if FB were caught red-handed doing something so egregious; would Apple really ban them?).

I think people don't understand just how extensive these databases are. I have no direct insight, but any time someone thinks an app has spied on them with the camera/microphone, I'd bet the company just has very good analytics connecting all kinds of data about people behind the scenes. It's not even enough to have no account on the platform, they still have tons of data on you and all of your connections to other people in your life.

I'm not happy about the situation, but I'm not sure what we can realistically do about it at this point.
 
That’s total BS. Apple sells Google the data of ~half their users in the form of making Google Safari’s default search engine, in a deal worth several billion per year.

Apple is applauded on a regular basis for being “private by default” or whatever, but their deal with Google shows it’s nothing but a publicity stunt - they’re perfectly willing to make permissive data sharing the default as long as they’re paid enough for it.

If Apple made Duck Duck Go the default, Google would lose hundreds of millions of daily searches. Sure, some people would stupidly change their default back to Google, but I’d guess it would be fewer than half. (Actually... I can even see Yahoo and Bing and whoever else get a boost from this change, as it would increase how many people make a conscious choice for their search engine instead of passively accepting Google as their default.)
Once again, Apple doesn't make money selling your personal data. I don't know about MS.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.